Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We started late because of the preliminary announcements, so we can run on slightly, but we must have much shorter questions from now on. To be honest, questions today have been simply far too long.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

10. What plans he has for expansion of the proposed Crossrail network.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)]

There are no current plans to extend the Crossrail route. Any proposed extension would require a strong business case, and would need to be in the best interests of rail passengers.

[Bob Blackman]

Crossrail is on budget and on time, and will dramatically reduce journey times across London. The one area of the capital that does not benefit from it is north-west London, and Harrow and Wealdstone in particular. Will my hon. Friend look at the business case for expanding the network so that all Londoners can benefit from Crossrail?

[Paul Maynard]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the connectivity benefits of Crossrail. I know that it has looked at the possibility of an extension through Harrow and Wealdstone, which he has been campaigning for, and into Hertfordshire, to join the west coast main line there. That was found by Crossrail, Transport for London and Network Rail to offer poor value for money, so we are not taking it forward at this time, but of course we always keep the issue under review.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Bob Blackman Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons & Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is a fine distinction. Most of us understand that the reason we pay our taxes is for exactly the kind of high quality transport system that a capital city such as London needs, and it is a huge risk that this Government are taking. The Government are forcing TfL to limit the damage, and they are using ingenious means and utilising existing assets to do so. The Budget indicates that there will be a move towards the full retention of business rates by local authorities, and we welcome the ability of local councils to have control over funding, but this is uncharted territory and we should be in no doubt about the risks to our transport system in London—risks that are a direct consequence of the political choices of this Government.

We want TfL to be modernised and to become a highly efficient public sector organisation. TfL has been making savings, some very difficult and controversial, but in its annual budget in 2014, TfL said that it is

“becoming progressively more difficult to achieve this without compromising our core services.”

This pattern of cuts is visible not just in the capital, but across the country. Cuts to local authority budgets have been extreme, leading the Local Government Association to point out that even if councils stopped filling in potholes, maintaining parks, closed all children’s centres, libraries, museums, leisure centres and turned off every street light they would not have saved enough money to plug the financial black hole they face by 2020. Department for Transport resource funding has been cut by 37%, from £2.6 billion in 2015-16 to £1.8 billion in 2019-20, representing a real terms decline of 71% since 2009-10.

Let us consider the fact that last year a record 8.6 million people were living in London. By 2030, that figure is predicted to reach 10 million. That is the pressure under which TfL finds itself. We are not ideologically opposed to TfL’s maximising the value of its assets to increase the revenue seized by the Treasury. They do what they have to do, and using resources efficiently is important to keep our capital city running.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friends and I expressed concern about certain measures in the Bill, including clause 5, which we have discussed. We are happy with the principle and understand the necessity of TfL’s having greater commercial freedoms, but the implications of those so-called freedoms were problematic. The controversial Earls Court development, a joint venture between TfL and the private developer Capital & Counties, set a worrying precedent for further public-private partnerships. Clause 5 would allow TfL to enter into limited partnerships with private property developers. Those partnerships are vague in legality and opaque in accountability.

I said on Second Reading that we must consider carefully the long-term impact of introducing powers to enter into those partnerships. We are reassured both by the fact that TfL has noted those concerns and by its decision to table amendments to remove clause 5 and references to limited partnerships from the Bill. It is encouraging that our opposition to that problematic part of the Bill was taken into account, and we are pleased with the outcome.

I also spoke on Second Reading about the importance of putting public needs above private profit. Property development to increase TfL’s revenue must not happen without the backing of local communities—those who are affected most directly. Those who bankroll projects should not subsequently be able to steamroller over local people. TfL is obliged to obtain the consent of the Mayor to dispose of an interest in land by sale or by granting a long-term lease. If that land is operational or has been in the previous five years, the Secretary of State for Transport must give his or her consent. It must be noted, however, that that did not prevent the unhappy saga around the developments at Earls Court from unfolding. The balance between the provision of affordable homes on the one hand, and maximising revenue to reinvest in transport, is an extremely significant and fine political judgment. We will be watching closely to ensure that proper balance is secured.

In conclusion, as clause 5 has been shelved, I think we are all hopeful that TfL can now move forward. We are keen to see how TfL uses its commercial freedoms to develop and improve the transport network that keeps our great capital city moving, but we will be watching closely to ensure that profit is used to benefit the public, and not the other way round.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I support amendment 1, and consequential amendments 2 to 6, which I tabled on behalf of the promoter.

This is a private Bill promoted by Transport for London, as has been said. It was submitted to the House of Lords in November 2010, and reached this House on 4 March 2014. It took rather a long time to get through the other place. The Commons gave the Bill a Second Reading on 9 September 2014, and it was considered by an Opposed Private Bill Committee on 13 January 2015, where clause 5 was substantially amended. I shall come on to discuss that briefly.

A debate on the consideration stage took place in the last Parliament on Monday 16 March, and those of us who were Members then remember that as an epic occurrence. Many amendments were tabled, and the time allocated for debate expired before proceedings could be brought to a conclusion. Following the agreement of both Houses to the revival of the Bill in this Parliament, consideration was first proposed on 22 February 2016, but there was an objection, resulting in the need for today’s debate.

The promoter, TfL, has considered carefully the strength of feeling expressed in the previous debate in the House about clause 5. If the clause was introduced, it would allow TfL to engage in limited partnerships. TfL recognised, notwithstanding the amendments to the clause made by the Opposed Private Bill Committee, that serious concerns remained about the possible exercise of powers conferred by the clause and about the lack of transparency arrangements, which was raised by objectors. Accordingly, TfL took the decision not to press for clause 5 to stand part of the Bill. The amendment to which I am speaking would leave out that clause, and the further minor amendments grouped with it are consequential upon the removal of clause 5. I understand that that is accepted across the House.

[Andy Slaughter]

As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is saying that TfL has listened to the democratic voice of this House and to the wishes of the elected representatives here. Is it as simple as that? If so, that is quite refreshing.

[Bob Blackman]

We have had substantial debates. The promoters listened to those debates, considered them carefully and decided that in order to ensure the passage of the Bill, rather than prolong the agony and the disputes, it would be better to withdraw the clause and demonstrate in good faith that they would not proceed with that element. That means, of course, that the Bill is substantially changed from its original form.

I shall touch on the amendments proposed by the objectors—in principle, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). If I miss one of the amendments that he is pushing, he will no doubt intervene to clarify that. New clause 1 is substantially that which was debated on 16 March 2015. We had a very long debate on consideration at that time and it was clear that that was not going to proceed.

The present new clause would impose restrictions on the disposal of land and on the development of the land. Prior to the disposal of any land, various tests would have to be satisfied. Prior to carrying out any development other than the development of the land for rail maintenance facilities, consultation would have to be undertaken with a range of consultees, including unnamed trade unions and the London boroughs.

TfL is subject to the normal legal requirements relating to the development of land. Accordingly, prior to carrying out development of land, including for rail maintenance facilities, TfL has to undertake consultation in accordance with the rules and procedures relevant to the consenting process in question. Adding a further layer of consultation there is unnecessary. Furthermore, the process for securing consents for disposal of land is well established under section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I believe the hon. Member for Hammersmith was a member of the Government at the time. Section 163 provides the statutory regime for the disposal of former operational land, including requirements for the Secretary of State’s consent. The promoters therefore consider that a further consenting process is neither necessary nor desirable.

Amendments 9 to 12 would lengthen the period of consultation. No solid argument seems to have been put forward by the proposer of the amendments on why that should take place. There would be a severe impact on TfL were that to take place. It would delay TfL improving its financial affairs and managing its operational undertakings, which would be detrimental to the tax-paying public and the fare-paying public. It is not clear what the impact of amendment 12 would be. It refers to a report being produced. TfL’s view is that the Bill, together with the existing processes and procedures under the 1999 Act, ensures that the exercise of the powers conferred by clause 4 will be properly exercised in discharge of statutory functions under the 1999 Act. That set of proposals is therefore unnecessary and unreasonable.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman asks what the point is. The point is bitter experience. I bet that he could give just as many examples from his constituency as I can from mine of projects that TfL has gone into without proper risk assessment or consideration, and which have invariably wasted millions of pounds. What we are looking for here, before steps are taken, is a proper process of review; of stepping back and thinking.

[Bob Blackman]

Requiring the Secretary of State to go through a process of producing risk assessments and so on is clearly extremely burdensome. It is quite clear that TfL will have to carry out those functions itself in order to justify what it is seeking to do.

Amendments 7 and 8, which the hon. Gentleman pressed in particular, are new and were not considered on 16 March 2015. The clear issue here is that exercising powers under clause 4 is subject to the consent of the Mayor, when he is granting security on borrowing or acquiring companies, and the consent of the Secretary of State, in respect of core assets and revenue. I could go into a long and detailed explanation of why that would be unnecessary. The point is that these amendments would create legal uncertainty over the whole question of what the requirements would be. They would also create uncertainty about TfL and its subsidiaries exercising the necessary flexibility around assets and revenue streams.

Since the Bill was deposited—this is a very important aspect—the operational funding from central Government has been reduced, as has been said during the debates. It will now be removed entirely, but much earlier than anticipated. The Bill, including clause 4, will assist TfL in its efforts to achieve further savings and efficiencies, while at the same time upgrading transport networks, which, I remind the House, support new jobs, new homes and economic growth in London and right across the UK. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press those amendments to a vote, because they are completely unnecessary, would create tremendous uncertainty and, indeed, would impact on TfL’s ability to generate the sorts of savings and to create the types of work that we all want to see.

[Andy Slaughter]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I will give way very briefly.

[Andy Slaughter]

I think I want the long and detailed explanation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. What I want to know—this is not about the first part of clause 4(2), which I understand, about

“security for money which it borrows”—

is how

“the payment of which it guarantees, or in respect of which it gives an indemnity”,

first, improves TfL’s financial position, and secondly, does not create risks to TfL.

[Bob Blackman]

It is quite clear that the operation under clause 4(2) mirrors what TfL can do anyway under section 160 of the 1999 Act, and the scope of what a subsidiary can lawfully do by way of offering a guarantee or indemnity is not changed by this Bill whatsoever. From that perspective, the proposals to delete these references are almost irrelevant, given that the same powers exist under the 1999 Act. TfL is merely seeking to ensure that it has got this flexibility under those arrangements.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I have given way on a couple of occasions. If there is something else the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise, he will no doubt duly do so.

Most of the other proposals appear to have been put forward at consideration stage on 16 March 2015—they certainly formed a great part of the debate, but they clearly did not secure the agreement of the House. I therefore suggest that all the proposals put forward by the hon. Gentleman should be rejected and that we should end consideration stage and allow the Bill to proceed to Third Reading so that we can discuss its general merits.

[Andy Slaughter]

I appreciate the way the hon. Gentleman has approached the debate, but he will understand that I am a little disappointed by his response and by that of the Minister, who gave the proposals a cursory few moments. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, for at least making some thoughtful comments.

It is not my fault, or that of any of the other opponents of parts of the Bill, that it has dragged on for five and a half years, and we will perhaps look at that issue on Third Reading. As I said, most of the proposals were probing or, I hope, improving proposals, and I am disappointed that they have been dealt with in a fairly cursory manner. However, I also said that I would not press them to a vote.

Let me go back to amendment 7. As I said, the powers in clause 4(2) already exist, but there is no ability to secure borrowing, or an indemnity or guarantee, against property. I asked what I thought were quite reasonable questions about that. I said that, whereas I understand the advantage of securing borrowing against property, I do not understand the benefit to TfL, the fare payer or the taxpayer of an indemnity or guarantee. I have not really received an answer on that from the Minister or the sponsor. I do not really blame the hon. Gentleman, who drew what turned out to be the short straw in being the sponsor of the Bill. TfL has serried ranks of experts in these matters—consultants, lawyers and property people—and the fact that we have not had an answer shows a certain amount of arrogance in the way this issue has been dealt with throughout.

I am not persuaded, but I am not going to push the proposals to a vote this evening. I hope, as I have said, that we have a new Mayor who will take a different view of how these matters are dealt with and how these powers are used. I agree that these issues are not at the centre of the Bill. As I have said several times, I appreciate the concessions that TfL has made. In that spirit, I am not minded to stop the Bill going forward now.

I simply think that it shows a lingering lack of candour and transparency and an attitude of “It’s none of your business how we run our railway” when those involved cannot give a simple explanation of a fairly simple, albeit technical point. However, there it is. I have made the points I want to make on the proposals, but I do not propose to put any of them to a vote tonight. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 1, page 1, (Recitals) leave out lines 6 and 7. —(Bob Blackman.)

Clause 5

Power for TfL to form and invest in limited partnerships

Amendment made: 2, page 3, line 24, leave out clause 5.—(Bob Blackman.)

Clause 6

Specified activities

Amendments made: 3, page 4, line 19, leave out “or a limited partnership”.

Amendment 4, page 4, leave out line 21 and insert “a member; or”.

Amendment 5, page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38.

Amendment 6, page 4, line 39, leave out “(c)” and insert “(b)”.—(Bob Blackman.)

Third Reading

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

It is a pleasure to rise at what I hope will be the end of a very long journey. The purpose of the Bill is to provide TfL with additional powers, so it can meet its business needs more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient arrangements for the stewardship of its financial affairs. TfL has identified various opportunities for maximising the value of its assets. They can only be realised if TfL acquires the new statutory powers or if the restrictions on the exercise of its current powers are removed.

This has been mentioned before, but let me put it on the record: TfL is one of the biggest landowners in London, with 5,700 acres of land. Clearly, there is a pipeline of some 300 sites, with 50,000 new homes to be provided in London. We know above all else that in London, the capital city of this country and one of the major cities of the world—if not the major city in the world—we need to provide more new homes and to keep people moving to create investment for the opportunities for jobs and for a better quality of life for everyone. The Bill enables TfL to play its part. It is clear that from October 2015 we already have 75 sites that will generate 10,000 new homes over the next two years. Two thirds of them, contrary to what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, will be in zones 1 and 2. It is not true to say that sites are not being provided for new homes for Londoners and for people who want to make London their home.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I will make a bit of progress and then maybe give way. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunities to put his own perspective and spin. I want to set the record straight.

Four sites in particular have been invested in recently by TfL: 360 homes at Nine Elms tube station, with 25% affordable; 55 homes in the Fenwick Estate near Clapham North tube station, of which 100% are affordable; the development at Northwood is only 20% affordable housing, but TfL has respected local demand to invest in a brand new tube station with step-free access; and at Parsons Green TfL has submitted a scheme with 40% affordable homes, which it has now withdrawn to allow further time for consultation with local businesses and residents. It is clear that TfL is responding to the request and demand for additional housing to be provided in the capital.

The Bill contains only three substantive clauses but is of great importance to TfL because it will enable it to deliver much better value for money for the fare payer and taxpaying public. The growth in London is relentless and driving up demand for services. The tube has record ridership year on year and our roads are also under great pressure. To keep London working and growing, TfL has to invest just to keep the assets in good repair, modernise the rail and road networks and improve reliability. The reality is that all its revenue is reinvested in TfL projects, be it on the roads or rail. Clearly, the issue that will be debated in the run-up to 5 May is how we keep that revenue stream increasing and ensure a fair balance between the taxpayer and the fare payer.

TfL’s £11 billion capital funding settlement from the Government runs from 2015-16 to 2020-21—the life of the Parliament—and includes a total of £5.8 billion in investment grant, £1.4 billion in general grant from the Department for Transport and, crucially, £3.8 billion in borrowing powers. That allows TfL to invest £1.7 billion a year to modernise the road and rail networks. The Circle, District, Hammersmith and City and Metropolitan lines will be the next four tube lines to be upgraded. I would have thought the hon. Member for Hammersmith would welcome that, seeing as his constituents use those lines, as do mine—I think, in particular, of the Metropolitan line.

[Andy Slaughter]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

No, the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to put his point of view.

From 2019, TfL’s objective will be to cover all the operational costs of running the tube and bus networks through non-DfT grant sources of income. It plans to do this over an extended period by running the business more effectively and efficiently. The continuous savings programme has generated a 15% reduction in costs. Following the November spending review, TfL has had to accelerate and build upon that because, as has been alluded to, its overall income is set to reduce by £2.8 billion over the period to 2020-21. The Bill will provide TfL with additional powers to run its business more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient and economic financial arrangements. This will allow TfL to maximise the value of assets, bear down on fares and deliver significantly better value for money to the public.

The first of the substantive clauses, clause 4, will allow TfL’s subsidiaries to borrow and grant security over assets and revenue streams. We have had a long debate about this issue in relation to the amendments. The powers will allow TfL to access cheaper finance for projects and to structure security so that a creditor has recourse only against subsidiary borrowing. TfL will be able to purchase subsidiary companies that already have secured debt without having to engage in costly loan restructures. Very importantly, the Secretary of State’s consent is required if core assets are to be offered as security, and the Mayor must consent to all other arrangements.

Where TfL owns more than 50% of a joint venture, clause 4 will enable TfL’s subsidiary to incur debt using the assets of the subsidiary as security. That does not advantage or disadvantage a private partner involved in the joint venture, as the increased value of the assets will be brought about with the greater flexibility in clause 4 and will be shared by TfL and the private sector partner, in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties.

Clause 5 has now been removed. Clause 6 seeks to expand the type of entities through which TfL’s commercial activities must be undertaken. TfL is currently required to undertake its profit-making activities through a company limited by shares that is either a subsidiary or a joint venture. The clause amends this restriction to give TfL the option of using any type of entities that TfL has the power to form, in addition to a company limited by shares. TfL would be able to use a company limited by guarantee or a limited liability partnership. Importantly, clause 6 preserves the policy that TfL must undertake commercial activities through a taxable entity by requiring that the subsidiary be a member of a limited liability partnership. Clause 6 will enable TfL to conduct its affairs more flexibly and net the maximum value from the assets.

Clause 7 amends TfL’s hedging power, responding to changes in the way that financial institutions hedge risk away from specific commodity trading to trading by indices—as, for example, in the use of an oil price index, as opposed to a barrel of Brent crude oil. It also gives TfL the capacity to enter into a derivative investment when TfL is exposed to a risk by virtue of contractual arrangements for the provision by others of public passenger transport services—for example, if there were movements in fuel prices, it would allow TfL to hedge the costs. Clause 7 also clarifies that TfL may use its hedging powers in respect of its liability to any pension fund. It is not proposed that TfL enter into any derivative investments on behalf of the TfL pension funds, but TfL will be able to hedge its contribution risk to the fund.

Given the benefit to TfL pension fund members, some of whom will be members of RMT, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is no longer in his place, acknowledged the merits of clause 7 on Second Reading. Once again, I find it hard to see the logic of the hon. Member for Hammersmith’s continuing to block the Bill. It seems that my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen have misconceptions about the scope of the Bill, but, contrary to assertions made on Second Reading and elsewhere, the Bill does not give TfL any new powers to sell or develop its land. TfL has had those powers since it was created in 2000, and it is not seeking to enlarge them in any way. Neither can TfL act autonomously when it wishes to dispose of its interests in its land, including when granting a long-term lease. TfL must obtain the consent of the Mayor to sell surplus land, and if that land is operational land or has been operational land in the last five years, the Secretary of State must give his or her consent.

Some colleagues suggested on Second Reading that TfL’s track record shows that it is not competent enough to be given greater powers and that it should focus on its core function of providing transport services rather than delving into joint venture projects with developers. It cannot be disputed that TfL serves more customers more efficiently and more reliably than at any point in its history. Providing public passenger transport will always be TfL’s main focus. The powers it seeks in the Bill will not detract from its discharge of those functions, and the discrete scope of the Bill should be taken as indicative of a change in TfL’s priorities.

The Bill will, however, give TfL greater opportunity to secure sustainable income from its assets, rather than a one-off capital receipt from their disposal. Very importantly, that is to adopt a long-term strategy to the management of its property estate, which will allow TfL to maximise the value of its assets and deliver better value for money to the public.

I am somewhat confused because it would appear that the hon. Member for Hammersmith is so lacking in confidence in his candidate for the mayoralty that he would seek to block this Bill in order to get him there. I am looking forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) assuming his place as Mayor of London on 6 May, and we can look forward to this Bill helping him to deliver more homes, more jobs and better and safer transport for the people of London.

Disabled Parking Permits (London Borough of Harrow)

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I first raised this topic during business questions some weeks ago, when I asked the Leader of the House to arrange a debate. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Speaker for giving me an opportunity to raise it again this evening. I want to discuss two issues on this occasion: the abuse of disabled parking permits, which is obviously a scourge, and the fact that Harrow has introduced a system that is preventing a large number of my disabled constituents from receiving permits when they should be receiving them.

The blue badge scheme was created to give

“free and dedicated parking close to amenities for drivers and passengers with mobility-related disabilities, or who are blind.”

Those with such permits are able to park on yellow lines for up to three hours, and are also exempt from the central London congestion charge. Passes are valid for a maximum of three years, after which passholders must reapply. Let me stress at this point that the various individual cases that I shall cite later in my speech are those of people who were in receipt of disabled badges, but have had them taken away.

I am sure that we all feel annoyed when we witness abuses of the system by, for instance, individuals who, although they are perfectly able-bodied, borrow blue badges and then park unlawfully in controlled parking zones. We must condemn the people who take such action, which is particularly common in the vicinity of football grounds, in supermarket car parks, and in other areas where parking is at a premium. Abuses of that kind have been a problem in Harrow.

The general misuse of a blue badge can carry a fine of up to £1,000, and stolen or fake badges involving the use of a pass from a deceased person can result in a sentence of up to 12 months in prison and/or a £5,000 fine. I congratulate Harrow’s fraud team on its numerous operations to tackle the issue. In June 2010, under Operation Cactus, 15 badges were seized. In July of that year, under Operation Daffodil, 16 were seized, and a further 16 were seized in December, under Operation Elderflower. In May 2011, 13 badges were seized under Operation Foxglove. You may note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a theme is emerging here. In July 2011, under Operation Gentian, another 16 badges were seized. Over that period, a total of 76 badges were seized, and there were two prosecutions, 32 cautions and one warning. Operations continued in 2013, when more than 60 badges were seized.

It is clear that there have been a number of abuses of the system, which have taken place over many years. When relatives “borrow” a pass, they are taking away a space that should be used by a genuinely disabled person, so there is no doubt that a crackdown was necessary, and it is no surprise that Harrow Council made efforts—which I applaud—to toughen up the entire system. Spot checks have continued, and the council is still finding people who are abusing the system. However, the problem is that this has gone too far the other way, with genuine blue badge applications suddenly being denied and the process for getting one made intentionally far too difficult.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

[Bob Blackman]

I have the privilege of representing the area of London that has the longest-lived people. As we all know, life expectancy increases as one goes up the Jubilee line from east London to north-west London, so the people of Stanmore in particular have the longest lives in London, and I therefore represent many people who apply for, and have, blue badges. The drawback of that is that getting around my constituency is often very difficult for those elderly people on public transport.

In the past two years alone, 82 residents have come to me with problems related to the system of renewing their blue badges. Every single one of those cases represents someone with a genuine need for a badge due to mobility issues related to age or disabilities. Because Harrow Council has outsourced the process, there is now no oversight and it is very difficult for councillors or for me and my MP colleagues to bring genuine cases forward and complain when an obvious injustice has occurred.

The current application process is as follows. A resident makes an application to Harrow Council either to renew the blue badge or for a new one, and a decision is made. If refused, there is a right of appeal, but if the resident pursues the appeal process, they often meet with an external company, Access Independent, and undergo a medical and a final binding decision is made. There is no further appeal. If there is another refusal, the resident cannot apply again for a set period of time. This means that disabled people are left high and dry without the ability to put their case forward until they have waited six to nine months before lodging another application.

When my office submits concerns on behalf of residents, we receive what is frankly a cut-and-paste answer: a one-paragraph, copy-and-paste reply saying basically, “It’s nothing to do with Harrow Council. It is to do with the Department for Transport and the guidelines that are issued. We have outsourced the process of assessing the applications and therefore we can’t do anything about it.” Councillors face the same problem and receive the same messages. That leaves us in the difficult situation of not being able to highlight and resolve these genuine cases where appropriate blue badges should be received.

The testing and appeal process is usually handled by Access Independent, as I have mentioned. It is an occupational therapy firm based in Cambridge. It operates a cut-throat process. More often than not, no doctor or medical expert is consulted and medical professionals see their diagnoses completely ignored.

One of the tests is that the applicant is made to walk for as far as possible, either down a hallway or in the main car park. This creates the following problems. Neither of those surfaces is representative of the pavements, roads and so on that people walk down, thus creating an illusion that they can walk fine; they are often walking on imperfect surfaces when they need to park close to facilities, whereas when they are tested they are walking on much better surfaces. Also, the method itself is fairly corrupt. Forcing people with mobility issues to walk as far as possible feels almost like a “Hunger Games” approach to testing eligibility. Often applicants I meet are very proud people who try and walk even when they are in severe pain, and I think that is unfair on them as individuals.

I have a range of individual cases that I am going to quote to give an illustration of where the system does not seem to work. In all these cases, I have sought and obtained the permission of each of the individuals to quote their details.

My first example is that of Mrs Suzanne Bard. I believe that the Minister has a copy of the local press coverage of her case. Suzanne lives in Bentley Priory, which was the headquarters of the RAF fighter command during the battle of Britain. The development is nearly a mile away from any form of public transport. She took her case to the Harrow Times, and hers is probably the strongest case I have seen. She is an 83-year-old widow who has held a blue badge since 2006. She suffers from severe arthritis, cervical spondylosis, obliterated joints—on which she has had multiple operations—and depression, and her application included no fewer than eight supporting letters from medical professionals. Mrs Bard witnessed various council officials and contractors completely disregarding advice from the best medical professionals she had been able to identify. The removal of Mrs Bard’s blue badge has effectively left her stranded up in Bentley Priory, which is grossly unfair on this widow.

I should also like to highlight the case of Joyce Richiardi from Stanmore. She is 93 years old, has a complex medical history and is severely restricted in what she can do without a blue badge. Her GP supported her application, but the case was rejected on the basis that she was deemed not to be “immobile enough”, even though she had previously suffered a heart attack and had two blocked arteries and severe breathing difficulties which restrict how far she can walk.

A further example is Caterina Gargano, an 80-year-old woman who lives with her husband Giuseppe in Stanmore. She suffers from dementia, with cognitive decline, and chronic lower back pain. She suffers from intermittent confusion as a result of both conditions. Giuseppe struggles to look after her, and Mrs Gargano can walk a maximum of only 20 to 30 metres. My staff have spoken with Giuseppe on numerous occasions and he gets very upset, almost tearful, when he tries to speak about it. The entire affair has angered him immensely, and he has every right to be upset.

We can draw a number of conclusions from these issues. Yes, there is abuse of the system when people use badges that are not their own, but it is not being carried out by the obviously elderly and frail applicants who need them. It is often carried out by relatives who abuse their position. In tackling the people using blue badges when they have no need of them, the answer cannot be simply to deny them to people with genuine needs. Harrow Council should not be penalising innocent users for the actions of a few.

I have some questions for the Minister, and I would be pleased if he could answer them in responding to the debate. What changes, if any, have been made to the rules relating to the issue of blue badges that were instituted by the Department, and which Harrow Council may be highlighting? Is the council taking far too restricted a view on who should be eligible for a blue badge? Given that the decision making is outsourced, has the council made the decision making too restrictive? Should there be an appropriate appeals process that involves Harrow Council, rather than the company that it has outsourced decision making to? What consideration should be made of the detailed medical evidence submitted on behalf of applicants, which at present seems to be being completely ignored?

I raise these questions on behalf of the large number of residents who have contacted me about this matter. I hope and trust that we can get some movement on it, so that the genuinely disabled, elderly and frail people of Harrow can have the badges they deserve, and the opportunity to visit shops and other amenities without fear of being penalised in such a way.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

This is a private Bill promoted by Transport for London that was deposited on 26 November 2010 and ordered to commence in the House of Lords.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

Perhaps I might make some progress on what has happened and on timescales before I give way.

The Bill was considered by an Opposed Private Bill Committee of this House on 13 January 2015 and one of the clauses was amended. The Bill was subsequently debated on Report on Monday 16 March, but the time allocated for the debate expired before proceedings could be brought to a conclusion. Parliament was prorogued shortly thereafter and the Bill fell.

In accordance with the practice of the House, at the beginning of the present Session the promoters requested that the Bill be revived under Standing Order No. 188B on private business. The revival motion that was subsequently tabled in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means has continued to be objected to, leading to the necessity for this debate. I stress that this debate is about the revival of the Bill, rather than its substance.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that a revival motion is needed because the Bill did not succeed earlier this year, but I wonder whether he raises his eyebrows slightly, as other Members do, at the fact that it has taken five years to reach this stage. Will he indicate why he thinks that might be the case?

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly the process in the other place has taken some time, and there were various applications to the Opposed Bill Committee for consideration of amendments, which is why the promoters of the Bill have amended it to allow those who objected to it to see changes that would benefit the overall process.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide TfL with additional powers so that it can meet its business needs more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient arrangements for the stewardship of its financial affairs. It would allow TfL to maximise the value of its assets and deliver significantly better value for money to the paying public, which is a laudable aim, and one with which I am sure we all agree.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my colleague from Harrow for giving way. I recognise that he has lived with the Bill for a very long time, whereas I am coming to it fresh. Is there anything in it that might give hope to my constituents, and perhaps to one or two of his, who use Harrow-on-the-Hill station and are waiting, and who continue to wait, for improved access arrangements there? Might the Bill help to sort that out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I am wary of straying too far from the principle of the revival of the Bill, because I know full well that there are transport improvements across London that we would all like to see. The key point is that ensuring that TfL has the ability to maintain its finances efficiently and effectively means that the improvements that my honourable colleague and neighbour would like to see can be brought to fruition. There are some improvements that I would like to see brought to fruition in my constituency, because, as I will say shortly, there are provisions in the Bill that would allow TfL’s finances to improve, so there would be more money for the transport improvements we all want.

[Mr Thomas]

My colleague will forgive me for being a little uncharitable and suggesting that his answer about Harrow-on-the-Hill station was a tad vague. I know that Stanmore station is a significant issue for him, so I will happily make common cause with him if he will use the influence that he undoubtedly has with TfL, having been asked to be the promoter of the Bill, to ensure that it brings forward improved access arrangements at both Harrow-on-the-Hill and Stanmore as a matter of urgency.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my colleague for stressing the point about Harrow-on-the-Hill station. I know from my use of the Metropolitan line that that is a vital aspect of the improvement that needs to take place. I will use the opportunity with TfL and others to ensure that we get the improvements we all want to see in Harrow, including at Stanmore and Harrow-on-the-Hill.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have great influence with TfL, so will he also take up the cause of Caledonian Road tube station, which is going to be closed for six months so that a lift can be renewed? I do not understand why the whole station has to be closed for sixth months, because there are four lift shafts—it is incomprehensible. I have written to TfL about it but do not seem to be getting very sensible replies. I wonder whether he might take up that cause as well.

[Bob Blackman]

I am rapidly taking up a number of causes across London. I know that Caledonian Road tube station is one of the great ways of leaving the Emirates stadium after football matches. Interestingly, substantial amounts of money were secured in order to dramatically improve the transport system around the stadium when it was being rebuilt. The reality is that there are concerns about whether that money was used properly. Clearly I realise that there is a need to renew the lift at Caledonian Road tube station, but I would much rather we ensured that there was a lift at Harrow-on-the-Hill station, because it does not have one, and at Stanmore station.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I give way to another hon. Lady from London, who no doubt has an aspect of London transport to bring up.

[Rachael Maskell]

I must correct the hon. Gentleman: I represent York Central, but I am in London today, as we all are. He said in his opening remarks that TfL’s financial position would be improved as a consequence of the Bill. On what premise is that assumption based?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

If the hon. Lady permits me to advance further in my speech, I will refer to that issue in a few moments.

TfL is responsible for one of the world’s biggest transport networks. On the tube alone there have been 1.3 billion passenger journeys over the past year. TfL is also responsible for a multi-billion pound investment programme to improve capacity and the connectivity of the transport network. London Underground, the subsidiary responsible for providing the tube service, has achieved improved reliability, with a 40% improvement in recent times. Since TfL took over the Overground network in November 2007, demand for its services has quadrupled, delays have been cut by two thirds and customer satisfaction has risen from 70% to 82%.

TfL is providing 25% more capacity to Overground services to help meet growing demand. The network was expanded in May to include the West Anglia inner suburban routes. TfL is the joint sponsor with the Department for Transport of Crossrail, the largest transport project undertaken in the capital for many years. The delivery company is a wholly owned TfL subsidiary and the project is on time and within budget.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I note that the hon. Gentleman has prioritised Harrow-on-the-Hill station when it comes to improvements, but a whole swathe of Londoners had hoped to be able to get on the tube network but now cannot: people with disabilities who need level access. Osterley station and Turnham Green station in my constituency were promised level access but now the projects have stopped. Is that because of the delay in the Bill or some other problem that TfL has?

[Bob Blackman]

TfL has clearly been investing quite dramatically in access for disabled people on the network over the past 10 years. I remember that the points she has made were made under the previous Mayor of London and not delivered, so I think that there is a quid pro quo on that subject.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I am going to move on to the key points about the Bill.

The Bill has only four substantive clauses. None the less, it is of great importance to TfL because it would enable it to deliver better value for money for the fare payer and the tax-paying public. Since the Bill was deposited, TfL’s operational funding from central Government has been cut by 25%, and the Government’s aim is to reduce that funding over time to zero. TfL is required to deliver £16 billion of savings over the period to 2021. The Bill would assist in that regard.

In summary, clause 4 gives TfL subsidiaries the ability to access cheaper finance, subject to the consent of the Mayor and, in respect of core operational assets, the consent of the Secretary of State, so clearly there will be an opportunity for Members of Parliament to have oversight of such proposals.

Clause 5 allows TfL to form limited partnerships. Following scrutiny by the Opposed Bill Committee, the clause was amended to provide that the Secretary of State must consent to the formation of the limited partnership by way of an order to be debated in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, on the principle of transparency of the limited partnerships, which I know was one of the particular concerns raised by objectors, the sponsors of the Bill have given way and ensured that there will be full public debate over such arrangements.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman talks about oversight by Members of this House. Does he acknowledge the concern that there ought to be more regular oversight by ordinary Oyster card holders in London and that the governance of TfL as a whole needs reform, partly to oversee the arrangements in this Bill but also to give people in London more of a stake in the big decisions about TfL’s future on asset sales, fare rises, and other big calls that it has to make?

[Bob Blackman]

There is clearly oversight by the Mayor of London, the Assembly and the Assembly’s transport committee. Of course, the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government who set up the arrangements for London in 2000, so no doubt somewhere on the record he has expressed the view that this should have been done, but I do not recall that that was being said at the time. The key point as regards oversight and transparency is that there will be an opportunity for the limited partnership arrangements, in particular, to be scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament.

[Emily Thornberry]

The partnership might be overseen when first established, but will there be anything to stop the identity of those in control of the other partnerships changing at a later stage and our not having control over that?

[Bob Blackman]

The initial set-up will be scrutinised by both Houses. If there were to be any substantial change to the way in which the partnership was structured, there would clearly be an opportunity for oversight. I am sure that nothing would be done that prevented proper oversight of proceedings through the London Assembly, its transport committee and the Mayor of London.

[Emily Thornberry]

Is there anything specific in the Bill that would stop the control of a partnership moving from one organisation or individual to another and ensure that at that point there was some form of oversight that would stop a transfer of control?

[Bob Blackman]

The hon. Lady might wish to probe that point further on the revival of the Bill when we debate particular aspects of changes to it, but it is not about the revival of the Bill in its own right.

Clause 6 expands the list of entities through which TfL can undertake commercial activities to include limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships and companies limited by guarantee. This enables TfL to conduct its affairs more flexibly and meet the maximum value from its assets. Clause 7 gives TfL greater flexibility to mitigate its risks through hedging, including allowing it to hedge commodity prices when it is exposed to fluctuations as a consequence of a transport contract or a contribution risk to the pension fund.

Contrary to assertions made on Second Reading and elsewhere, the Bill does not give TfL any new powers to sell or to develop its land. TfL has had such powers since it was created in 2000 and is not seeking to extend them in any way, shape or form. TfL must obtain the consent of the Mayor to dispose of surplus land by sale or granting a long-term lease. If that land is operational, or has been operational in the past five years, the Secretary of State must also give his or her consent. TfL is also subject to scrutiny by the London Assembly and has various obligations to publish financial details in its accounts and details of its surplus land and building assets. The powers TfL is seeking in the Bill will not detract from its discharge of its core functions.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I will not give way any more.

The discrete scope of the Bill should be taken as indicative of a desire by TfL to meet its business needs more flexibly, and cost-effectively.

One of the key issues that has been identified during the whole process, which I think we all agree on, is the opportunity to maximise the development of assets for housing purposes. If the Bill were finally to become law, TfL would release more than 300 acres of land in London to help create more than 10,000 new homes across London. Sixty-seven per cent. of this phase of development is in travel zones 1 and 2.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

No, I am not giving way any more.

TfL is working with the Mayor, London boroughs and the commercial property development sector to bring forward developments in an innovative and creative way. The additional powers in this Bill will enable these developments more efficiently, enabling more of the revenue raised from the developments to be reinvested into the transport network and bear down on fares. That means that the people who oppose the revival of the Bill will be saying to Londoners that we do not want 10,000 new homes on redundant TfL land.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Bob Blackman]

I am not giving way any more.

In view of the benefits that this Bill will bring, it is essential that it becomes law as soon as possible. I will be eager to listen to contributions from Labour Members, in particular. Given the campaign that is shortly to be run in London, it is vital that we give the Mayor of London the opportunity to create much needed housing. The creation of 10,000 housing units on 300 acres of redundant land is a great opportunity that is being denied and prevented by the shenanigans of Labour Members. I therefore move that the Bill should be revived so that it can complete its passage through this House. I trust, Madam Deputy Speaker, that during the course of this debate you will ensure that Members restrict themselves to the subject of the revival of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Our worry is that, as a major landowner in London TfL, has a real responsibility. That is why Opposition Members have made it so clear that we feel that once that land is gone, it is gone forever, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) put so well. That is a very powerful point. She also pointed out that we have a deep unhappiness about these limited partnerships. She put that very well, too—partnerships with who knows who; the risk being nationalised, the profit being privatised. That point is absolutely right.

I enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), whose ability to smell a rat at 300 miles is legendary. He, too, has spotted exactly what is going on in this Bill.

I also endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). She pointed out that the financial consequences of this Bill are very poorly explained, which gives us yet further cause for concern.

We appreciate that TfL needs to be looking at a long-term strategy for London’s transport infrastructure. It is absolutely right to do so; it is its job. But there is a real fear, which has been raised by many of my hon. Friends as well as by trade unionists and London residents, that elements of this Bill would lead not to a long-term investment strategy, but to profiteering in the short term on property development, an outcome which is totally unacceptable.

As a number of my hon. Friends have said, we do not feel the way the powers provided in this Bill would be used has been scrutinised adequately, and we are not assured that local councils and communities will be properly protected.

I think we all recognise that this Bill has been on something of an odyssey through Parliament over the years, but we are not persuaded the proposals in clause 5 should ever make it to Ithaca—that is a reference for the good Mayor to pick up. Given the bad feeling generated over this Bill for years, it is now time for TfL to reflect, go back to the drawing board and bring forward new legislation in this Session that we trust will command greater consensus and confidence and genuinely allow TfL to utilise its assets in ways that are consistent with the wider long-term public good.

[Bob Blackman]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. As far as that matter is concerned, industry across the piece is very embarrassed by what has happened, and I am pretty sure that it will take proper action to ensure that the right regulatory measures are taken.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Could my right hon. Friend update the House on what progress is being made to bring Crossrail 2 through Harrow and Wealdstone station?

[Mr McLoughlin]

We are out to consultation, and I would have expected my hon. Friend to say what a great job we are doing as far as Crossrail 1 is concerned, However, as I have come to learn in this job, no sooner have we completed one major infrastructure project, than people are always talking about the next one. I am glad that he is in a position to talk about Crossrail 2, because it means that Crossrail 1 is being built.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with particular regard to donations from trade unions to my constituency party. We are now in a long campaign period and although these donations are to my constituency party and are not personal donations, I wish to declare them. They will pay for leaflets in the election campaign bearing my photograph—that will probably cost me votes! I thought I had better declare those interests tonight.

Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on behalf of myself and colleagues who drafted amendments to the Bill, I would like to thank and congratulate the Clerk on the advice he provided to us throughout. He took our original ideas and my own poor drafts and turned them into the amendments that have been selected today.

I will happily curtail this debate right now if the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), representing the Bill’s promoters, can inform us whether Transport for London is willing to accept all the amendments. If it is, we will not need to spend any further time on the issue this evening. I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is willing to advise us of TfL’s position.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to intervene at this point. The sponsors of the Bill have been through the various amendments, and I have been taking advice today. The sponsors reject every single one of the new clauses and amendments.

[John McDonnell]

That is disappointing—in fact, I am absolutely shocked. I thought we might have been able to see some movement on at least some of these issues, given the dialogue that has taken place and that this Bill has been travelling through the House since 2011. Elements have been dropped from the Bill and the Committee insisted on having amendments at some stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interventions.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 29).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Just one moment, Mr McDonnell. Please allow me to make sure that everybody understands; perhaps then there will be fewer points of order. We are on new clause 1 and the other amendments on the selection list. The next speaker is the sponsor of the Bill.

[Bob Blackman]

I rise to respond to the very long and detailed speech made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

Not yet—I have not even started my speech. I expect to make some progress before taking an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

The Bill started in the other place in November 2010. It has gone through Second Reading in this place and an Opposed Private Bill Committee, where there was the opportunity to make many interventions and many changes. After Second Reading in this place, the proposers approached all those who opposed the Bill, as I suggested they should, to encourage them to develop their concerns so that there was an opportunity to understand those concerns and to amend the legislation, if necessary. The reality is that they have moved substantially and I want to respond on the details.

The coalition Government have moved towards devolved government in London and across the country. Amendments 21 to 29 would take power away from the Mayor of London and require the Secretary of State to intervene. That is a centralising move that the House should reject absolutely, as more power is being devolved to the regions and to London in particular.

Briefly on new clause 1, the disposal of non-operational assets is covered by section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which was introduced by the last Labour Government and has been added to since. The review that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington proposes in the new clause would be extremely expensive. That cost would fall on the taxpayer and the fare payer.

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Bob Blackman]

I will give way after I make this point. On the visibility of Transport for London’s property portfolio, there is already a searchable website that any hon. Member, member of the public or interested party can search to establish what property holdings Transport for London has right across the capital. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity to look at that website and see the opportunities that exist.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he argues that it is too expensive to produce a list under new clause 1, but on the other he says that a list exists. The new clause will ensure that Transport for London publishes a list not only of its assets, but of its plans for those assets. That is the whole issue in this debate—the lack of openness and transparency from Transport for London about the development of its intentions for individual sites, as we have seen with the disastrous consequences for Earls Court, where 700 homes were lost to the local community. Do the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of Transport for London, and the Mayor of London oppose new clause 1 to maintain that level of secrecy in their relationship with private developers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

The reality is that the Greater London authority and assembly exist to scrutinise the work of the Mayor and Transport for London. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that they are not doing their job, he should condemn the members of that assembly. We should be placing power in the hands of Transport for London to carry out the functions we want, and to open up capacity for housing that is desperately required by Londoners. We must then ensure that that work is subject to scrutiny by the GLA and assembly members.

[John McDonnell]

Has the hon. Gentleman read the witness account from the Opposed Private Bill Committee? At that Committee, as I said earlier, a Greater London assembly member reported that the assembly’s own budgetary committee had to use freedom of information requests to gain information from Transport for London about the use of its moneys and assets. The lack of scrutiny is a result of the impediment placed by TfL in the way of Greater London assembly members. Will he read the transcript of evidence to the Opposed Private Bill Committee that was presented to the House?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is a shame that the details he cites were not reflected in the amendments that were finally tabled only a few days ago—if that—so that the sponsors of the Bill and Members that support it could analyse them.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that the amendments were tabled late—I think that is the allegation—and that the sponsors of the Bill could not respond. The amendments were placed before the Clerks in time—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. One second. Do not worry; relax. Let me have a little look at this. I assure the House that the amendments were not tabled late by the hon. Gentleman. There was a mistake in the Table Office, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being said. We do not need any more points of order on that as we have clarified the matter well. I am sure, Mr Blackman, that we will proceed in a courteous way.

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.

On new clause 2, the issue of securing consent for the disposal of land owned by TfL is well established in section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It includes a statutory regime for the disposal of former operational land, including requirements for the Secretary of State’s consent. The sponsors of the Bill therefore consider that further consent would be unnecessary and undesirable.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned housing in London and the disposal of assets to meet housing needs. Is he aware that under permitted development rights, the conversion of office or industrial property does not require local planning consent so there is no social housing content to it? Does he accept that the Bill would be strengthened no end if there was a requirement that the disposal of property for housing purposes must reflect local housing needs in the area where that property is disposed of?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Let me help with the debate, which we want to get under way. Mr Corbyn, I want you to save your speech for when you seek to catch my eye, rather than use it now on an intervention.

[Bob Blackman]

I reject the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and the point behind it. On behalf of the—

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I will not take any more interventions, as we have gone on long enough—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wishes to intervene, quite rightly it is up to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) whether he gives way. He has made it clear that he does not want to give way again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thought my judgment was correct: that is not a point of order. You are after a point of clarification, but that is not up to me. It is up to the sponsor of the Bill whether he wishes to give way. He has been courteous and given way a couple of times. Perhaps if he is allowed to speak for a little longer, I can call the Opposition spokesman and then some Back Benchers. I would like to do that and hear what the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has to say.

[Bob Blackman]

On behalf of the sponsors of the Bill, I oppose new clauses 1 and 2 and amendments 21 to 29.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

What an extraordinary spectacle we have seen on the Government Front Benches! As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, a set of proposals are being brought forward on important issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has spoken at length—some might have thought that he spoke at too great a length, but that is not for me to judge.

During all that, however, those on the Government Front Bench have remained mute on an issue of great importance to Londoners and to us all. I want to know why the Government have taken that position. Has the Minister consulted with the great helmsman of infrastructure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will not be happy that the Government are not putting forward a position on the Bill? If he wants to intervene on me, he is welcome to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The stewardship of public assets is very important. As someone who believes in public enterprise and public endeavour, I have to concede that the London Passenger Transport Board was established under a Tory Government in 1933. Lord Ashfield was its first chairman and he did a fine job in promoting its development. So even then, in the depths of the recession in the 1930s, there was a consensus that the public ownership of assets mattered, and he stood up against a lot of private interests to achieve that. Let us preserve what we have got, and recognise that the future inevitably is very unpredictable.

I came into parliamentary politics at a time when London’s population was falling and bus and tube use was falling. I remember the then director of London Underground telling me how there were going to be fewer trains and fewer passengers and how LU was thinking about which assets it could get rid of because it did not need them. I cautioned against that, saying that it was a counsel of despair. I said that we needed more people on trains and buses and that fewer people in cars would lead to less congestion. That big public debate happened in London, and we moved into an era not of road building but of rail development and other improvements. London became the first capital city in which public transport usage started to go up; others have now followed.

I ask the Bill’s promoters to think more carefully about what they are doing and to think more carefully about the precious asset that they have and about how they can develop and protect it. I thank the Minister again for his preparedness to engage on the issues that I have raised tonight. I am really grateful to him for that, and I hope that we can make some progress. That is the kind of engagement that we would like to see on the Bill, instead of this peremptory refusal even to discuss the serious concerns that have been raised by a number of Members this evening.

[Bob Blackman]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and to hear his explanation of the new clauses and amendments that he has tabled. Amendments 21 to 29 would remove the requirement to consult or get permission from the Secretary of State on certain minor matters. There is a dilemma about whether it should be the Secretary of State who rules on these matters or the Mayor of London, with the assembly scrutinising what the Mayor and Transport for London do. A dilemma arises when we devolve responsibility and power: should we then recentralise it to the Secretary of State? We as London MPs face that challenge daily. The amendments would recentralise power to the Secretary of State.

[John McDonnell]

Clause 4(6) introduces the need for the Secretary of State’s approval, which we all support—as does the hon. Gentleman, because it is in the Bill. The schedule, however, sets out a long list of functions and assets that virtually undermines that subsection. That is our anxiety about the schedule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for expressing that anxiety.

Hon. Members have mentioned TfL’s failure to engage with the objectors, but having gone through the Opposed Private Bill Committee and listened to the various proposals, my understanding is that they have been reflected. TfL has sought to meet the objectors and hon. Members to ascertain exactly the details of their objections, and it will have heard what has been said tonight. Clearly, we will not reach agreement on all the amendments, but TfL will no doubt reflect on them.

My concern on reading new clause 1 is that all such properties would have to be banded by value. In my judgment, that would lead to more speculation, rather than less. If TfL is disposing of assets, it should seek to maximise the value that it gets, but banding by value would play into the hands of property speculators. At the moment, the assets are all listed on a searchable website that can be seen by any member of the public, so we know what TfL owns. I therefore reject new clause 1.

New clause 2 would set in train a whole series of consultations and place heavy restrictions on the disposal of land. In my view and in that of the promoters, that would place an unnecessary encumbrance on TfL. There is already a statutory regime, set out in section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. TfL cannot avoid that; nor does it wish to do so.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier comments on the parallels with the protection of rail land for future use. For example, the March to Wisbech line has been preserved even though it has not been used for many years. It is now going to be reopened because someone had the foresight to preserve it. I have the same concerns about TfL assets being put up for disposal. Does he not accept that having the Secretary of State in place to provide a kind of long-stop protection, as we are proposing, would be a good thing?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the reasoned way in which he has made his points. The reality is, however, that there is already a clear procedure for the disposal of former operational land. There is no need to go into the kind of detail set out in new clause 2. For that reason, I oppose new clauses 1 and 2 and all the other amendments in the group.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

Rail Network (Disruption)

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not think I will take too many lessons from the Labour party about bonuses. In 2009-10, the bonuses paid to Network Rail were £2.3 billion; this year, it was going to be £260,000. I think there should be carrots and sticks, and, if the criteria set are met, a bonus is a way of rewarding the people directly involved in providing services. [Official Report, 7 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 2-4MC.]

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The football fixtures were published in July last year, with a full programme of matches scheduled for Boxing day. There were no national rail services that day—clearly that decision was taken at some stage during the year. What is inexcusable is the complete lack of communication to football fans across the country about what alternative arrangements should have been made. What can my right hon. Friend offer the inconvenienced football fans who were desperately seeking an alternative way to travel on Boxing day?

[Mr McLoughlin]

One of the things I am not responsible for—I do not think any member of the Government is—is the fixture list of football clubs. Perhaps they need to answer the question why some of the fixtures are so far apart in the country at a time when, as has been the case for many a year, there is no rail operation because of engineering work on the lines. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about what should change in the considerations. I do not think football fixtures will be at the top of the priorities, but obviously we should take an interest.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This private Bill is promoted by Transport for London. It was deposited on 26 November 2010, and ordered to commence in the House of Lords. It was read the First time in the other place on 24 January 2011, and it was read a Second time on 13 December 2011, when it was debated. It was a further two years until the Unopposed Bill Committee took place on 28 January 2014. It was read the Third time in the other place and transferred to this Chamber on 4 March, when the First Reading took place. It is therefore fair to say that the Bill has had a long gestation period.

The Bill’s purpose is to provide Transport for London with a broader set of powers so that it can meet its business needs more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient arrangements for the stewardship of its financial affairs. Transport for London has identified various opportunities for maximising the value of its assets, but at the moment they cannot be fully realised unless it acquires new statutory powers or restrictions on the exercise of its current powers are removed. The Bill is also an opportunity to save money for taxpayers and fare payers. It has only four substantive clauses, but its principle is of importance to TfL, not least because the benefits deriving from the Bill will enable TfL to deliver much better value for money for the fare payer and the tax-paying public at large.

The first three clauses broadly concern bringing the Bill into operation. The first substantive clause is clause 4, which allows Transport for London subsidiaries to borrow and grant security over assets and revenue streams, enabling TfL to have cheaper finance for projects and greater flexibility in how it borrows. TfL currently has the power to borrow and it has a borrowing programme, but it may offer lenders only a non-specific charge over revenues, not over properties.

Borrowing on a secured basis will allow TfL subsidiaries to achieve lower interest rates than can be obtained through the Public Works Loan Board or through issuing bonds—the original aim under the legislation initiated by the previous Government—which are two of the significant debt financing options available to TfL. The clause will allow TfL to borrow money in circumstances where granting security is done predominantly or exclusively on a secured basis, and unsecured borrowing is either not possible or very costly. For example, property developments are usually financed by the lender taking a charge over the land being developed, which accordingly leads to a lower interest rate and means less risk to all parties.

Clause 4 allows TfL’s subsidiaries to borrow for a discrete purpose and to structure security so that a creditor has recourse only against the subsidiary borrowing and not against TfL and its other subsidiaries. That protects the fare-paying and tax-paying public from any liability that arises on TfL debts.

Clause 4 allows TfL to purchase subsidiary companies that already have secured debt. TfL will no longer be required to restructure secured debt when it purchases a company with such existing debt. TfL had to acquire Tube Lines Ltd and Tube Lines Finance plc at very expensive rates—I well remember the fiasco, as I was a member of the London assembly at the time. Had clause 4 then been in operation, TfL would have been spared significant costs, which ultimately have been borne by fare payers and taxpayers and resulted in lenders receiving enhanced value for their loans for nil consideration to TfL.

Clause 4 includes important safeguards and limitations. It provides that TfL subsidiaries must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to grant security, except in respect of categories of property included in the schedule to the Bill, which Members can go through in detail if they are interested. The exempt property may generally be described as property that is ancillary to TfL’s core function of providing passenger transport services and includes such categories as property that is used for the purposes of car parking or retail units, for example. The consent of the Mayor of London is always required, irrespective of the type of property being changed.

Clause 4 provides that the rights of existing TfL creditors are preserved in full. A secured creditor may have priority over an existing creditor only where the existing creditor consents to the arrangement, so all parties are protected. TfL subsidiary borrowings will still be subject to the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 2003. Borrowings must only be for any purpose relevant to a local authority’s functions or for the prudent management of its financial affairs. TfL subsidiaries will also be subject to existing borrowing limits set by the Secretary of State, so the public sector borrowing requirement is protected and security is granted.

Clause 5 expands TfL’s power to form different types of entities for the purpose of carrying out its functions. I understand that this is the most controversial clause for those who object to the Bill. I understand that the sponsors have had meetings with several of the individuals who are concerned and that undertakings have been given in that respect. Currently, TfL may only form bodies corporate, which includes companies and limited liability partnerships. TfL is seeking a new power to form, or join others in forming, limited partnerships and to invest in those partnerships once formed. TfL would like the option of using a limited partnership when seeking third-party investment, which seems a sensible process.

Pension funds and foreign entities are likely investors, so we are likely to see greater investment in joint arrangements with TfL, which will represent good value for the taxpayer. Those investors often prefer to invest in partnerships, rather than company structures, because of the tax transparency that partnerships afford. If TfL can offer a partnership as the joint venture vehicle, it is likely that there will be increased interest in the investment opportunity and that the maximum value of the asset will be realised. TfL proposes that it may form a limited partnership only for the purpose of carrying out its functions, which prevents speculative arrangements.

There is a limited tax benefit from using a limited partnership, but it is confined to stamp duty land tax, which is payable when land is transferred into a partnership. Stamp duty land tax is levied only on the proportionate share of the land being acquired by fellow partners, rather than the whole part. That benefit is conferred on any partner of a limited partnership irrespective of their status and is not unique to TfL. Indeed, many local authorities use limited partnerships for joint ventures and have been supported in doing so by the Treasury.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am fascinated by what my hon. Friend is telling the House, but surely there is a bigger picture. Would it be better for TfL effectively to be owned by the people of London? They could have shares in TfL, so it would therefore be funded to a larger extent by equity capital without the need to borrow.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. That would be a very radical move away from TfL’s existing capability and the arrangements that are made. I am sure the Mayor of London will be listening to the debate and will consider that suggestion appropriately, but it is beyond the scope of Second Reading, which is limited regarding proposed borrowing changes.

Transport for London’s subsidiary share of the profits generated by a partnership will be liable to tax in the same way as if a company were used instead of a limited partnership, thereby maintaining appropriate tax transparency. Several individuals, and particularly the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, have been concerned about whether the Secretary of State should give permission for such entities to be entered into. I understand that a written undertaking has been given to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the RMT on the basis that an amendment will be introduced in Committee that would require the Secretary of State’s permission for such an organisation to be permitted, which I hope answers one of the principal objections.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Is there an awareness of concerns that some of my local residents will have about proposals for the increased use of the Acton depot? As my hon. Friend will know, there is a substantial residential community in that area, which will not welcome the further increase in pollution that I suspect some of these activities will lead to.

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for her local residents, and she has been at the forefront of the campaign against environmental air pollution and suchlike in her area. One objection to the Bill comes from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), whom we will hear from later, in relation to the Earls Court development. I understand that part of that process is to transfer the depot from the Earls Court area to Acton. Clearly, as sponsors TfL will have to ensure that air and noise pollution is reduced considerably to answer the objections that my hon. Friend has related to the House.

Clause 6 seeks to expand the type of entities through which TfL’s commercial activities must be undertaken. TfL is currently required to undertake profit-making activities through a company limited by shares that is either a subsidiary or a joint venture. The clause amends that restriction to give TfL the option of using any type of entity that it has the power to form. In addition to a company limited by shares, TfL would be able to use a company limited by guarantee, a limited liability partnership, or a limited partnership. Importantly, clause 6 preserves the policy that TfL must undertake commercial activities through a taxable entity by requiring that a TfL subsidiary be member of a limited liability partnership, or a partner in a limited partnership. A company limited by guarantee is itself liable to taxation. Clause 6 will enable TfL to conduct its affairs more flexibly and at the same time preserve tax transparency and ensure that the relevant amount of tax is paid to the Exchequer. That will mean that it can use the structure that best suits the opportunity, and net the maximum value for money from its assets in so doing.

Clause 7 amends TfL’s hedging power, responding to changes in the way financial institutions hedge risk away from specific commodity trading to trading by indices—for example, the use of an oil price index as opposed to a barrel of Brent crude oil—which protects the hedging power considerably. It also gives TfL the capacity to enter into derivative investment when exposed to risk by virtue of a contractual arrangement for the provision by others of public transport services. For example, movements in fuel prices, which obviously affect TfL’s costs, would be protected.

Currently, TfL’s hedging power may be applied only to risks to which a TfL body is directly exposed. Clause 7 clarifies that it may use its hedging powers in respect of its liability to any pension fund, for example. It is not proposed that TfL enter into any derivative investments on behalf of the TfL pension fund, so members of that fund will be protected. It is not inconceivable, however, that the fund might decide that a particular risk is acceptable, given that all its liabilities are long term and that TfL effectively underpins the risks through an obligation to increase its contributions, if necessary, and that TfL might believe that the risk needs to be mitigated. Clause 7 provides for that specific scenario only.

In summary, the Bill will assist TfL in securing the most cost-effective borrowing possible. It will give TfL greater flexibility over how it structures its affairs, while preserving the requirement that its profit-making activities be taxed appropriately in the UK. It will improve TfL’s hedging power by reflecting developments in the derivatives market and permitting the hedging of risks that arise through contractual exposure and as a consequence of its obligations to pension funds. It will allow TfL to maximise income and investment in its assets and to deliver better value for money for fare payers and taxpayers, which we, as London MPs, crave every day. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

We have had a full and reasoned debate on the principles of the Bill. The hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) have raised reasonable concerns that need to be considered in detail in Committee. On behalf of the promoters of the Bill, let me say that the key is allowing Transport for London the opportunity to borrow money at lower interest rates and to reduce the risk for Londoners as a whole, and that is something of which we should all approve.

The issue of ensuring that Secretary of State approval is given for any such venture is a concession to be taken in Committee. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) raised a series of legitimate issues that need to be considered. I thank the Minister for his support and contribution. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) set out what was almost a mini-manifesto for a bid possibly for another position in the future.

I hope that the Bill is given a Second Reading. I trust that it will proceed now to Committee and then to law in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.

I do not wish to detain the House for too long because the Bill has been subject to very detailed scrutiny at all its stages in this House and in the other place. I hope that, like the two previous London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bills, this Bill will be passed this afternoon, giving the councils and Transport for London very useful powers that I am sure will be welcomed by everyone who lives in London.

London councils and boroughs bring forward proposals for Bills, and this one started out in May 2007. At that time, I was sitting as deputy leader of Brent council, where we gave the Bill some detailed scrutiny. After the proposals were refined in summer 2007, the Bill was finally lodged in November 2007. It can therefore be said that it has had a long gestation period of some six years.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and his colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and others, who have subjected the Bill to very detailed scrutiny. It is fair to say that it has been a long process. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has sought tirelessly, not only on this private Bill but on others promoted by London local authorities and, indeed, authorities throughout the land, to ensure that such Bills are given detailed scrutiny, as is entirely appropriate. It may be said that they get far more scrutiny than legislation proposed by the Government that is much more important, if that is possible. I am sure that his constituents will rest easy knowing that his assiduous work on this Bill on their behalf means that when they next visit this great city there will be less clutter on the streets, apart from electricity charging points, safer skips and cleaner air as a result of the increase in the use of electric vehicles that will no doubt arise.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous remarks. This Bill started off with 39 clauses and now has 20. Does he accept that other legislation we pass in this House would invariably be much better if it were similarly truncated?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Before the Bill started, 15 clauses were removed by the Lords Select Committee that considered it, 10 of which formed one part of the Bill, and three were dropped by the promoters in agreement with people who objected. Detailed elements of the Bill have been subjected to tidying up and making sure that they are appropriate to the times we live in.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for their contributions to this debate.

Finally, I would like to mention something that will no doubt cause great distress to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and his colleagues and perhaps some joy and relief to others, including our Whips. I have been told that apart from a short four-month period in 1991, ever since the first London local authorities Bill was deposited in November 1988 there has been at least one such Bill before Parliament. When this Bill obtains Royal Assent, as I trust it now will, that continuous record will end. The torch is being carried on to some extent by TfL with a Bill that is currently in the Lords, but for the London boroughs, for the moment, that is it. As it happens, tomorrow is the day by which private Bills must be deposited in Parliament. I have it on very good authority that a London local authorities Bill will not be deposited.

With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you and your colleagues for your forbearance and hope that the House will shortly see fit to give this worthy Bill a Third Reading.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely. The clause refers to anyone who

“interferes with a relevant barrier without lawful excuse”,

which raises all sorts of questions regarding how to avoid the build-up of congestion caused by an accident or another incident such as a fire. If somebody says, “We need to open this barrier so that the traffic can flow more freely,” they might—unless they are authorised by the local authority—find themselves guilty of an offence. It seems to be a totally disproportionate response to the problem that the Bill’s promoters say exists.

I have seen no evidence of how many occasions gated roads have been opened, closed or otherwise interfered with by people to the detriment of the local authority. As I said at the outset, if there is a problem surely it would be better dealt with under the Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which relates to all authorities, not just those in London.

Rather earlier than some might have anticipated, I have reached the end of my introduction to the amendments, to which I have tried to speak in a constructive way. This is not an exercise in trying to prevent a Bill from making progress; it is an exercise in trying to ensure that the legislation that we put on the statute book is clear beyond peradventure and of sufficiently high quality to merit inclusion. It is very difficult to put these things right after the event, and on too many occasions in the past local authorities and Transport for London have been given wide powers that were not sufficiently explored beforehand, to the detriment of the general public. That is why, on behalf of road users and residents in London—I declare an interest as the owner of freehold property in London—I propose these amendments. I hope that the Bill’s promoters will address them as constructively as they have agreed to address at least two of the amendments in the next group.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for tabling these various amendments in, I trust, a spirit of exploring the intentions of the Bill’s promoters. I trust that my explanations will be sufficient for him not to press them to a vote. The Bill has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny both in this House and in the other place, so I will confine my remarks to the amendments.

I gleaned from my hon. Friend’s remarks that he tabled amendments 1 and 2 because he wants an explanation, not because he wants to press them to a vote. They relate to the commencement date for the regulations on lamps and signage. The Bill’s promoters across London are very keen for ultimate flexibility as to when the regulations should be introduced. The amendments would constrain London authorities to introduce them all on the same day across London, which would be draconian. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to say that there will be a need for lamps and signage to be restricted, but at different times for different authorities. That does not alter the fact that authorities have to advertise and give notice of their wish to introduce these schemes, but they do not have to introduce them in the same way right across London.

[Mr Nuttall]

Will my hon. Friend give the House one or two examples of the sorts of signs and effects that would alter traffic systems?

[Bob Blackman]

There will be times when signage or lamps are required, possibly on a temporary basis, and therefore one needs to introduce them, and give notice of that, and then take them away again. Those signs might be for emergency roadworks, or a particular purpose such as special events that take place in London. There are regularly demonstrations and road closures for special events, and it would be foolish to have those signs unnecessarily in operation throughout London and the affected areas. I trust that that provides a suitable explanation. It does not change the fact that local authorities must still advertise the reason for lamps and signage, as is wholly appropriate.

Amendment 3 suggests that after the Localism Act 2011, which enables local authorities to take many actions themselves, and after devolving power to London, we suddenly drag power back to the Secretary of State to force the Minister—or someone else—to consider the minutiae of things that go on in London. To me that seems to be overkill, and it does not take place in any other part of the country. The Secretary of State and Ministers have plenty to do without considering the minutiae of a code of practice that London local authorities will come together and agree, cross-party and for the good of all Londoners and London. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will accept that such things are best kept to a local level, rather than involving the Government. I understand that the Government have not stated that they want to interfere in such a process, and I am sure the Minister will confirm that in due course.

[Mr Chope]

Is not the point that provision is already set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to deal with such issues? That is national legislation but the Bill seeks to modify it for London. My amendment would ensure that there is a proper safeguard for that proposed modification for London through the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend refers to localism, but surely such things should apply equally to all local authorities, not just those that bring forward Bills such as this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Minister is getting carried away. He cannot intervene on someone who is already intervening. I think we have got the message for Bob Blackman to respond.

[Bob Blackman]

Does the Minister wish to intervene?

[Mr Hammond]

Wearily he climbs. Let me try and clear up this point. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that it should not be for the Government to consider the minutiae of things, but I suspect that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is not actually intra vires or workable. This is a Transport for London Bill, and therefore the code of practice would be incumbent on those in control of Transport for London. Transport for London is devolved to London, and such matters would be for it, and the Mayor to consider, not the Secretary of State. I therefore suggest that the amendment is completely unworkable.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention. Amendment 4 would mean that local authorities could not put up lamps and signs in a conservation area without consent. The problem is that councils already have the power to do that, although they must obtain the consent of the owner of the building. This is a decluttering measure; the idea behind these provisions is to remove the clutter of road signs and signage that appears all over London, which most of us Londoners recognise as disastrous. The amendment would restrict the ability of local authorities to declutter conservation areas and put up appropriate signs, although that ability is what most people want to see. Finally, the provisions in question, including those on conservation areas, were proposed by English Heritage. I bow to its expertise in wishing to pursue them.

Amendment 5 deals with notices. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made several points about people who appear to be residents or are employed on the land in question. The point is that notices would be served on such people if the local authority had been unable to ascertain the name or address of the owner of the premises. The provision in the Bill retains flexibility and is exactly the same as that in section 53 of the Crossrail Act 2008 and many other pieces of Government legislation. It is entirely consistent with previous legislation, so I strongly resist removing it.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is doing a good job of explaining the position. However, if I heard him correctly, he said that handing over a notice would be a last resort. Will he at least accept that the Bill does not actually say that?

[Bob Blackman]

It is clearly incumbent on the local authority to make every effort to establish the name and owner of a building, and it would be sensible for it to do that. However, in London in particular, there is often a freeholder, a leaseholder and maybe a sub-leaseholder, and the ownership and responsibility may be confused. The provision is about giving a notice setting out what is going to be done to the outside of a building. That is not particularly draconian, but it is clearly required. A local authority frequently goes through a set of procedures to make such things happen. It would be draconian to frustrate its ability to provide signage or lamps that are wholly consistent with the general requirements of TfL or London local authorities.

Amendment 6 would remove the provision allowing local authorities to use any other existing general powers to serve notice. Councils have a power to do so under section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972, and that power is enshrined in the Bill. The effect of the amendment would be to remove that capability under the 1972 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch may have difficulties with that Act, but this is not the right place to express them.

[Mr Nuttall]

On that basis, if local authorities already have the power to serve notices, I am not quite sure what the purpose of clause 5(5) is.

[Bob Blackman]

It just reinforces and restates existing legislation, and I think it is sensible to have the relevant legislation all in one place so that people can understand everything that applies. The subsection is nothing new and does not amend the 1972 Act. That Act has gone through many changes, through London Acts and so on, so it is sensible to retain the subsection.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend says that the subsection just restates the existing law in section 233 of the 1972 Act. That section applies throughout the country, so why is it necessary to reapply an existing provision in a local Act? Why do we need clause 5(5) at all? He says that it is useful to have everything in one piece of legislation, but that provision is already in the 1972 Act. Unless there is something in the subsection that adds to or subtracts from section 233 of that Act, what is the point of having it? How can that be good legislation?

[Bob Blackman]

For clarity and continuity it is sensible to restate, not change, the position that already exists. There is nothing new in clause 5(5), but if I were reading the Bill, I would want to know that there was complete clarity about its purpose.

Amendments 7 to 9 deal with cost and repair. There is nothing more frustrating for people than to see a development cause damage to a public highway, and for there then to be a lack of clarity about who will fix it. This is a problem in large parts of London. However, the effect of the amendments will possibly not be what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch intends. The local authority has a clear duty to maintain the highway so that it is in a good state of repair. In many parts of London it is not in a good state of repair. Where a developer or someone acting on behalf of an owner has caused damage, it is clear that the first option should be for the developer to repair the damage it has caused. Amendment 7 would remove the obligation on the developer to fix the damage it has caused and put the onus completely on the local authority to obtain the funding from the developer or the owner affected. This is, therefore, an unwanted measure.

Existing national legislation is worded in exactly the same way as the proposed legislation. Amendment 7 would place London local authorities in a worse position than the local authority in, for example, Christchurch. I do not see any reason why London authorities should be placed in a worse position than authorities outside London. The position should be consistent for all three amendments: the first call is for the developer to fix the problem it has caused. If it does not fix it, then the local authority should step in, make good the damage, and charge the people who caused the damage in the first place. In all these cases, this is entirely consistent with national legislation. The obligation to fix it should be on the people who caused the damage.

[Mr Chope]

The explanatory memorandum states that

“Clause 6 would replace section 133 with provisions for London that would enable the highway authority to recover their expenses of remedying such damage to any part of the highway, not just the footway.”

That seems to be what is being changed, rather than the means by which the damages can be recovered. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a lot of rather superfluous wording, if the purpose is just to be able to extend an existing power from the footway to the whole of the highway?

[Bob Blackman]

The key point is who repairs the damage initially, or how the money is recovered. The point is that it should be the developer who causes the damage—frequently, heavy lorries delivering goods to a site cause damage to the highway as well the footway—who repairs it first. If they do not repair it, then the local authority steps in, makes good the damage, serves a notice and recovers the money. Unfortunately, the effect of all three amendments would remove the position of the developer doing any work at all, and put the onus fairly and squarely on the highways authority to make good and then try to recover the costs. That would be terribly frustrating for all concerned.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am not sure that I entirely agree with that interpretation. All that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) seek to do is move the word “may” from line 30 to line 31. At the moment it states:

“may make good the damage and recover the expenses”.

If amendments 7 and 8 were accepted it would state:

“shall make good the damage and may recover the expenses”.

In both cases, the “may” would apply to the question of the recovering of expenses.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, but that is completely the wrong way around. The polluter should pay. The developer who has caused the damage should pay. The point is this: whether they repair it themselves to the required standard of the highways authority or whether the highways authority makes good and then charges is a matter for the local authority. That is certainly something that they should be doing. Certainly, they should not expect the council tax payer or general taxpayer to fund the repair of damage caused by a developer, but, if the amendments were passed, the developer would be under no obligation to make good the damage and the local authority might be unable to recover the costs incurred, which would be a retrograde step.

[Mr Chope]

I think we are at cross-purposes. My hon. Friend rightly said that the polluter should pay, but my concern is that if the polluter does not repair the damage to the highway, it might go unrepaired, unless my amendment 7 is carried, as it would require the local authority to repair the damage.

[Bob Blackman]

The highways authority already has a duty to keep the highways in good repair. As I read the amendment—I was only able to read it today—my concern is that it would not allow the developer to fix the problem.

[Mr Chope]

Yes, it would

[Bob Blackman]

No, it wouldn’t. It says that the local authority “shall” step in and do the work, irrespective. That wording is incorrect and is why I shall resist amendment 7, as well as amendments 8 and 9, which are all consequential amendments.

On amendment 20, London has many gates placed across roads to prevent the flow of traffic through residential communities. The roads are normally accessible by the emergency services—the fire brigade, ambulance service and police—and other appropriate authorities, but sometimes there is a severe problem. At the moment, if someone damages a gate, they can be held liable for criminal damage, but if they merely open the gate for their own convenience—to access the road or bypass a congested road—it defeats the purpose of that gate, which is to prevent large parts of London from being used as rat runs. The promoters therefore seek an enforcement option. If, on being directed by the emergency services, someone opened a gate, clearly they would not be guilty of an offence, but if they opened a gate for their own convenience—or for other people’s convenience, for joyriding or whatever—they would be guilty of an offence, and it would be up to the local authorities to enforce those actions.

I accept completely that there is an issue of interpretation around the reason for opening the gate, and there is always the potential for somebody to receive a penalty for incorrectly opening one, but it is entirely fair and proper to make it clear that people should not open one unless they have authority or good reason to believe that life or limb are in danger.

[Philip Davies]

I am not entirely sure that the matter is as clear-cut as my hon. Friend says. As I understand it, if someone is at a red traffic light, an emergency vehicle wishes to get through and that person moves through the red light to allow it through, they still can be, and in some cases have been, prosecuted for going through a red light. I fear that, under the clause, if somebody for a good, common sense, although perhaps not lawful reason, opened a gate to allow an emergency vehicle to get to the scene of an accident, they could still find themselves prosecuted, which surely cannot be anybody’s intention.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, this is a matter of interpretation. The purpose of placing barriers across a traffic highway is to prevent the incursion of normal vehicles, but I cannot envisage someone ever being prosecuted for opening a gate that is normally locked in order to give access to an ambulance, the police or the fire brigade. However, the promoters are keen to ensure that people understand that if they interfere with a locked gate that is there for the purpose of preventing traffic from passing through, that will be an offence and they can be prosecuted.

[Mr Chope]

Obviously we want to test out the new provision, because it would create a new criminal offence, so what about the following scenario? What if somebody finds that the gate is open and therefore closes it? Under the provisions we are discussing, they would be liable.

[Bob Blackman]

Having made something of a study of such gates in London over the years, I can say that they are almost all locked with padlocks—except where someone has stolen the padlock, in which chase the gate will often flip open and shut. Young people—in general it is young people—have a habit of occasionally using such gates as a form of entertainment. We need to make it clear that such gates are there for a purpose. This issue is a matter of interpretation. We are talking about gates being interfered with—that is, opened to allow the incursion of traffic.

[Philip Davies]

My earlier intervention fell on stony ground, so I will try from a different angle. My hon. Friend thinks that somebody in the scenario that I painted would not be prosecuted, but how about this scenario? What would happen if somebody refused to open the gate for an emergency vehicle in a desperate situation because they feared being prosecuted for contravening the law as it stands? Would that not be a shocking consequence of the proposal we are discussing?

[Bob Blackman]

It would be shocking; indeed, it would be shocking if the emergency services did not have the keys to access such a gate when they arrived at the scene, which in my experience they always do. To my knowledge—I will bow to anyone else’s superior knowledge—there has never been a situation where the emergency services required access to such a gate but were prevented because they were not carrying the keys.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Is it not also the case that the emergency services have a statutory power of entry when they are fulfilling their duties under the appropriate legislation?

[Bob Blackman]

I cannot imagine that anyone who was acting under the authority and direction of a member of the relevant services would be prosecuted for that.

In summary, on behalf of the promoters, I hope that I have given sufficient explanation to enable the mover of the amendment to withdraw it, rather than pressing it to a vote.

[Mr Nuttall]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

These amendments relate to part 3 of the Bill, which deals with “Builders’ Skips”. It is important that we have a proper control regime for builders’ skips. It is also important that we are absolutely clear in our own minds about what the impact of the proposed changes to the Bill would be. For example, amendment 10 would add to section 8(1) so that the relevant highway authority could require the relevant person to provide them with the name and address of the owner of the builder’s skip

“where that information is not clearly and indelibly marked under the provisions of section 9”.

Section 9 provides that a skip must be

“clearly and indelibly marked with the owner’s name and with his telephone number or address”.

It seems to me that the best way of resolving this matter is to ensure that the skip must be, as amendment 15 suggests, clearly and indelibly marked with the owner’s name, telephone number and address. If that is done and there is no breach of the provision, it will not be necessary for the highway authority to exercise the power set out in clause 8 because the information that it is seeking to ascertain will already be in its knowledge and the knowledge of anybody else who looks at the skip in question. That would improve the wording of the Bill.

Amendment 11 challenges the current provision, which states:

“A requirement under this section shall specify the period within which it must be complied with, which must be a period no shorter than 3 working days beginning with the date on which the request was made.”

[Bob Blackman]

rose—

[Mr Chope]

I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention shortly, but I am going to anticipate it in my next comments. Prior to his looking at this because it was drawn to his attention by my amendment, nobody had thought through how reasonable a period of three working days would be in these circumstances. As a result of my tabling amendment 11 to insert 14 working days instead, he and the promoters of the Bill have seen the unreasonableness of the original proposition and the reasonableness of the amendment. He indicated in a letter that I received this morning that he would be willing to accept the amendment.

[Bob Blackman]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on tabling this amendment. The promoters are happy to accept it, and I do so on their behalf without the need for a Division.

[Mr Chope]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.

Amendments 12 and 13 deal with the level of penalty for any person convicted of an offence under clause 8(6), which says that

“in the case of an offence under paragraph (a)”

the fine should be “not exceeding level 3”. However, under paragraph (a) the penalty would apply to somebody

“on whom a requirement is imposed…if…without reasonable excuse he fails to comply within the period specified”.

That means that he would not be providing the information within 14 working days. That is, I submit, a relatively minor contravention that should merit, if indeed it is prosecuted at all, only a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale. Obviously, if a person responds to the requirement and, in so doing, gives information that he knows is false in a material particular, that is much more serious. The gravity of that could be reflected in a fine not exceeding level 3 rather than a massive one at level 5. I look forward to my hon. Friend explaining why the fine levels in the Bill were chosen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. Sometimes the imagination of those who draft private Bills runs away with them and they think of all possible scenarios. Requiring someone who has taken all reasonable precautions to avoid a contravention to set out in writing their information about other people who might have been up to no good, goes too far.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who I am sorry is not in his place, made a point about the immobilisation of builders’ skips—I think the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) also raised that issue. If a builder’s skip is unlit, not properly guarded, causing a nuisance, filled with rotting rubbish or whatever, is it sensible to immobilise it? That is the challenge I put to the promoters of the Bill with amendments 17 to 19, which would leave out clauses 12 to 14.

If the owners of a skip have offended against provisions in part 3 of the Bill, surely penalty notices and so on will be involved. To immobilise the skip in the meantime, thereby preventing its owner from removing it when it is not lit or causing a nuisance, seems to go slightly in the wrong direction. I am sure I am wrong about that, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East responds to the debate he will put me right and explain why London would be a better place if all skips were immobilised. The fact that this was a cross-party issue and taken up on Second Reading was not properly addressed in Committee, so I hope it can be addressed in response to my remarks. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend in the hope that we can proceed with these amendments in a similar way to the previous ones.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for outlining his various amendments. I will run briefly through the promoters’ view of each. I trust that he will see the logic that they have applied.

The amendments relate to proposals for the decriminalisation of the position on builders’ skips. The power to enforce the rules and if necessary—I emphasise that—immobilise skips when relevant notices are not complied with will instead be put in the hands of the local authority. The authority will have to be convinced that immobilisation is the correct thing to do.

Amendment 10 suggests that information should be provided only if it

“is not clearly and indelibly marked under the provision of section 9”.

I think my hon. Friend has got the wording incorrect, because the requirement set out in the Bill is under section 139 of the Highways Act 1980. The problem, as Members will see if they come to various parts of London and see skips on the roads, is that there may be a name on the side of a skip, but it might not be accurate, because skips are swapped around various companies at various times. The amendment would place a severe burden on skip suppliers to ensure that the details were accurate. On that basis, I do not think it would be sensible to accept it, particularly given the rest of the Bill’s provisions.

The promoters wish to accept amendment 11, and on reflection believe that 14 days should be allowed for compliance. That makes better sense.

Amendment 12 is about the maximum fine for not complying with a request. For clarification, I point out that a level 3 fine is currently £1,000 and a level 1 fine £200. The Government are currently consulting on increasing those levels fourfold, and the Ministry of Justice has raised no objections to the proposal that level 3 be the appropriate fine for the offence set out in clause 8(5)(a). In fact, a level 3 fine is lower than the fine in some equivalent cases. For example, under section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the maximum fine for the equivalent offence is level 5, which is £5,000. The promoters have sought the right level for an offence of this type. If skips are placed on the road in contravention of highways law, appropriate fines are needed for the local authority to remedy the situation. If the owner did not provide relevant details, the local authority would find it difficult to remove the skip, immobilise it or take appropriate penalty action against the supplier. People need to understand that if they deliberately flout the rules, they will get a severe fine.

Amendment 13 is about the offence of knowingly supplying false information in response to a legitimate request from a local authority for the name of the provider and owner of a skip. The Bill currently provides for a level 5 fine, which is £5,000. The amendment would lower the fine to £1,000. A draconian fine is required to prevent people from knowingly misleading the local authority, so that they cannot leave a dangerous skip on the road without the authority being able to identify who had done so.

Amendment 14 lowers the threshold at which a penalty charge notice could be served when a skip owner does not take reasonable steps to comply with the existing requirements. We need to make it clear that the Bill is a decriminalisation measure. At the moment, there are no “reasonable steps” elements in it. The amendment, therefore, would water down the requirements considerably. The general public—motorists, pedestrians and others—have a right to believe that if skips are placed on the public highway, they will be properly positioned, properly lit and will not be dangerous to motorists or pedestrians. The amendment would water down the proposals considerably and unfairly.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend has said on a couple of occasions that this Bill is a decriminalisation measure. Many people will be somewhat mystified by a decriminalisation measure that clearly creates criminal offences.

[Bob Blackman]

The point is that these are criminal offences at the moment. The proposals would put the power relating to the public highway in the hands of local authorities, so that they would take action to prevent people from allowing dangerous structures—skips, in this particular case. There was something similar many years ago with parking control, for example. Parking control used to be enforced by the police. It was then decriminalised and put in the hands of local authorities to enforce. A similar position is proposed in the Bill. Instead of the police having to take action, local authority personnel would take action. That does not make it any less of a requirement. It shifts the requirement from the police, who I think we would all say have a big job to do anyway and should not have to do such work; it should be the job of local authorities. That is the purpose of the Bill, and that is why I describe it as a decriminalisation measure. The police enforce the criminal law; local authorities have a duty to enforce the Highways Act 1980 and other appropriate rules.

[Mr Nuttall]

On that point, will my hon. Friend inform the House what sort of court someone would be taken to under these offences? Who would enforce them?

[Bob Blackman]

A penalty charge notice would be issued initially. If that is paid, that is the end of the matter. If it is not paid, it is then presumably for the local authority—I would take advice on this—to take the matter to the county court or the magistrates court to push a position where liability orders would be obtained, and the enforcement action would follow in a similar vein to that of a parking offence on the public highway. Hopefully none of that would ever arise, because people would realise that if they failed to observe the rules they would face high penalties. We all want the streets to be safe. This is a set of proposals for when people deliberately flout the rules. We need draconian measures to ensure that that position is maintained.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend says that it is perfectly reasonable that somebody who owns a skip should be subject to massive penalty charges if in the course of the night the lighting is stolen or vandalised and ceases to operate through no fault of their own. Can that really be fair?

[Bob Blackman]

The current position is that were that to happen and lighting were removed, a criminal offence would have been committed. The police would step in and take appropriate action against either the owner of the skip or the owner of the property at which the skip was based. Clearly, we want skips that are placed on the public highway to be lit properly and placed in a sensible and not a dangerous position. I will come on to that point later. We can water down the criminal law and remove the ability of people simply to claim, “It’s nothing to do with me, guv. What can I do if someone removes the lighting?” That does not change the fact, however, that someone has driven their car into a badly lit skip, causing immense damage. At that point, it will be a matter of ensuring that the wrong is put right, and that, if it is not, a fine is issued. It is as simple as that.

Amendment 15 would require names, addresses and telephone numbers to be marked on skips. That would change the law in London, meaning that skip owners would face much more draconian measures in London than outside it. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends smile and laugh, but when someone acquires a skip in London, they do not necessarily acquire it from a site in London; they might acquire it from a skip owner outside London, who would then have to take it to London. If the amendment were passed, the owner would be burdened with having to mark the address and phone number in a way that did not apply in the rest of the country.

I know plenty of skip-owning firms that come from way outside London to provide skips, as well providing skips in their own areas. The amendment would provide for a regulatory burden in London that did not exist elsewhere, resulting in the potential problem of people inadvertently falling foul of the law. I agree that there might be an argument for amending national legislation in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch suggested, but he is a promoter of deregulation, wherever possible, and I do not believe that we want to impose unnecessary regulation on businesses outside London. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and should not be pursued.

Amendment 16 deals with penalty charge notices. If we left out subsection (8), anyone served with a PCN could say, “It’s not me, guv. I’m not responsible.” As far as I am aware, whenever a PCN is issued for an offence on the highways, it is for the person served to substantiate whether someone else was responsible. If we left out the subsection, that person could say, “It’s nothing to do with me”, and then the authorities could not pursue those responsible. For that reason, we would resist the amendment.

[Mr Nuttall]

The logical conclusion is that the person on whom the authorities have served the notice must turn investigator and solve the problem themselves.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, it would be incumbent on the person served with the PCN to substantiate that the contravention was down to someone else, in the same way as they would make representations against any other PCN. The local authority would then examine those grounds, and if they were relevant and someone else was responsible, the PCN would be withdrawn and issued to the relevant person. That is exactly how local authorities deal with highways offences.

Amendments 17, 18 and 19 deal with potential immobilisation. Clearly, local authorities in London want the power to immobilise a skip if they deem it appropriate, but of course if a skip is in a dangerous position on the highways, the last thing they are going to do is immobilise it; they will want it removed. If, however, it is in a reasonably safe position and a notice to change the lighting has been issued, the local authority could step in, light the skip and immobilise it using the devices on the market that allow that to be done, making it safe for pedestrians and other road users. At the same time, they could pursue the person who has contravened the rules. A local authority would do that only if it was appropriate to do so, which is quite right. Amendments 17, 18 and 19 deal with that issue.

One of the challenges is what is in the skip. Obviously local authorities need the discretion to remove anything that is inappropriate.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

If I remember correctly, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) pointed out on Second Reading that many people did not realise that skips could be immobilised, given their size and weight. However, the hon. Gentleman has just explained that such devices are available. When it is safe, their use may be appropriate to prevent people from flouting their responsibilities when they place skips on our roads.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the issue.

In summary, let me say on behalf of the promoters that we accept amendment 11 and oppose the rest of the amendments in this group. Part 3 of the Bill deals with appropriate action to make London streets safer when people put skips on the public highway, by ensuring appropriate fines and enforcement action when people break or flout the rules. We will accept amendment 11, but I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press the other amendments.

[Philip Davies]

I seek to fulfil the same role in this debate as I did in the debate on the previous group of amendments, by speaking briefly and highlighting for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) where I think he is on to a winner and also where he has not necessarily persuaded me of the merits of his case.

I am rather puzzled by the whole debate on amendment 10. My hon. Friend made a good case for saying that we should ask people to supply information about the owner of a builder’s skip only

“where that information is not clearly and indelibly marked under the provisions of section 9,”

as his amendment sets out. If I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) correctly—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong, which I may well be—he was saying that because skips change ownership quite often, having just a name, telephone number, address or whatever it might be on the skip would not necessarily be a good enough indicator of the actual owner, because the skip might have changed hands a couple of times since those markings were applied. That might well be true, but the problem is that it flies in the face of clause 9, which states that the owner would have to ensure—I might add that anyone who did not do this would have to pay a fine—that

“the skip is clearly and indelibly marked with the owner’s name and with his telephone number or address”.

The promoters of the Bill cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that such information is required for the purposes of clause 9, but that it would be unfair to require it in clause 8. I would advise my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East to have another think, because my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is simply proposing a modest, common-sense amendment that goes with the flow of the Bill, not against it.